One Last Spin: Update

We’ve suspended filming for One Last Spin for now. This is in common with most but essential working as Coronavirus continues. Planned interviews with people in different parts of the UK will be rearranged.

The time won’t be wasted as it will afford us an ongoing opportunity to research subject matter. We’ve taken note of an increased emphasis by campaigners and academics upon the supply side of gambling, including product design. This has been a focus of research for some experts for many years, and something that often lone voices of ‘ordinary’ people have been expressing for a very long time. There are now organisations such as Gamvisory, a user-level group which seeks to involve ‘experts by experience’ in representing a vitally important but to date virtually absent role in influencing gambling policy.

Similarly, the Health and Social Care Alliance Scotland are taking the lead in the three years National Strategy to Reduce Gambling Harms which will take a public health and population approach which ‘will put the voice of lived experience at the heart of the process.’ In fact, today an event to discuss ways forward of such involvement had to be postponed (and some of our potential interviewees were thereby unavailable).

One Last Spin will add to the growing media of ‘experts by experience’. For instance, check out the videos at Gambling with Lives, a wonderful yet tragically based user-led organisation discussing bereavement of those who have lost loved ones through gambling suicide.

It’s encouraging too to see the interaction going on between academics and the people whose voices matter so much and have been often unheard. As in all generalisations this hides the truth that many UK politicians and academics have long met with individuals badly hurt, sometimes ruined, by contemporary gambling.

One such researcher is Professor Rebecca Cassidy, whose fieldwork included working in a bookies as a cashier. Her recent book, Vicious Games: Capitalism and Gambling is a gem. We have written a short review of it here. It covers many areas of gambling but one thing that stands out for us is her attention to the paucity of much gambling research and the need to move towards qualitative research involving the neglected voices at the heart of the matter.

It’s in this sort of spirit that One Last Spin is being made.

 

 

Advertisement

Vicious Games: Capitalism and Gambling. A Review

Below is a review of this very good book.  We’ll be adding to this in forthcoming posts.

Wide-ranging and precisely researched. Professor Cassidy’s fieldwork as an anthropologist provides a fascinating insight into the actuality of the gambling industry in opposition to surface statistics and ‘evidence’. She shows the nexus comprising industry practice, government policies, regulation, academic research, technology, marketing and gamblers. Importantly, she removes any idea of a global approach: each state or region of the world has very varying practices involving many different factors.

 

A history of UK gambling from 1960 legalisation of betting shops through to the present online practices via the introduction of electronic gambling machines on the high street is contextualised within contrasting and complementing histories in other parts of the world. Personal work as a cashier in betting shops reveals the inherent violence in many and the risks to staff – a stark contrast to the stated industry policies of staff and customer protection. Cassidy’s experiences at gambling industry conferences and in headquarters of  major gambling companies captures not a monolithic perspective but multiple, often contradictory aspects of individual roles, the views of individual workers and, rather than a neat linear introduction of business responses to new models based around potentiating profit opportunities afforded by regulatory and technological developments, a fragmented, sometimes chaotic, ‘catching up’ by the industry.

The book demands that we stop thinking simply about the world of gambling. However, there is a strong advocatory impulse which. almost imperceptibly, draws to a conclusion. In many ways this conclusion was reached in Cassidy et al’s 2013 report ‘Fair Game: Producing gambling research’ at Goldsmiths, University of London, which you’ll find online. In the report, as in the book, the status of academic research is interrogated. Not only is it an ‘unpopular’ academic research interest, hence a paucity of good quality investigations, it has been used by the industry on occasions, paid for by the industry, as a rhetorical weapon. The sense is that the mantra of governments for ‘evidence’, industry claims that there is ‘no evidence’ that gambling provision causes no harm to the vast majority of players, is something of a fig leaf.  The research approach of Cassidy, an anthropologist, is in total contrast to what, in any case, is fairly febrile data-driven approaches (for one, data is incredibly difficult to come by). In sum, the great weaknesses of gambling research are unearthed. And in any case, at the end of the day governments, legislators, policy makers, regulators and industry do not make decisions based upon ‘evidence’.

 

As well as the excellent insights afforded by Cassidy’s conversations with a range of stakeholders from industry CEOs to people who have been grievously harmed by modern gambling products, where the book excels is in Cassidy’s placing gambling in the context of neoliberal capitalist ideology. At a simple level this can be charted in the Thatcher-Reagan turn to market freedom and an emphasis on ‘personal responsibility.’ There’s no such thing as society, only individuals who have the power to shape their life, the responsibility and freedom to do so. If a person runs into trouble with gambling (or any legal product) it’s their own fault. They are weak, flawed, bad. Although Cassidy discusses a public health approach (in theory) to gambling problems, I think it would have been helpful to put this in the wider context of mental health ideology, since gambling or any other ‘addiction’ is a mental health issue (though in practice the medical establishment sometimes has difficulty dealing with this, although individual professionals do their very best to change such practice and underlying assumptions). Concentration on individual ‘pathology’ is endemic in all branches of mental health research and society: one senior gambling executive claimed that ‘problem gamblers had ‘brain diseases’ to start with. There is, of course, resistance to the dominant ideology, resistance which asserts the centrality of ‘problem’ environments – inequality, poverty, exploitation by clever marketing and so on.

 

Cassidy argues that this dominant focus upon the individual reinforces and reproduces the emphasis on ‘responsible gambling’. In fact, ‘An experiment which began in the 1980s ((financial deregulation, neoliberalism)), to shift the burden of risk from the state to the citizen, has increased inequalities and changed the ways in which we imagine wealth is created and shared. Gambling has been at the heart of these shifts: in the City as it deregulated and embraced riskier, increasingly complex and opaque ways to make money, becoming less and less accountable as a result, and in government itself, which encouraged citizens to become self-sufficient individualists.’

 

The promotion of ‘responsible gambling’ reflects this ideological construction of ‘self-sufficient individualists’. Dominant narratives around gambling are based upon this attitude, an attitude taken as something as natural and realistic as the way things really are, as natural as nature. Cassidy’s book is a powerful challenge to these dominant narratives. The last line of the book is optimistic. I won’t repeat it here but comment that its an excellent coda.

 

As a layperson I want to add that the book is very accessible, and short, while remaining academically rigorous. It has so much in it, so many interweaving levels, that the only way to do justice to it is to urge people to read it.

Adrian Bailey

Busy, Busy

Our documentary is coming along nicely. A fair bit of pre-production done and a few weeks before we start filming.

After many delays it’s looking like there is a good chance we can get our drama piece about digital gambling into Barlinnie Prison. Yup! We’re trying to get into prison!

Martin’s been especially busy adding to his already great network of contacts, including a trip to Westminster last week and meeting up socially with Gambling with Lives / The Big Step who completed the long walk from Reading FC to Wembley. Check out the Gambling with Lives website.

Grassroots campaigns are driven by the dreadful suffering caused by some aspects of the gambling industry. Others, who have no personal experience of gambling, are joining them as awareness grows. Politicians from all sides, academics, addiction workers, psychologists and the media are raising their voices all over the world.

Nobody who hasn’t known it can presume to imagine the pain of losing a loved one to suicide brought on by gambling. A countless number have had life ruined by less tragic losses. It’s a public health issue that should have far more awareness and treatment facilities, but it must begin with prevention.

one last spin

Our present project is the production of a high-quality documentary about issues around gambling in the world today. A highly professional and experienced production team is currently engaged in research and planning. The film will centre around the gambling life of Martin Paterson who many of you will recognise as one of the most vocal campaigners demanding urgent and radical reforms to the gambling industry. We’ll also hear from other campaigners and people whose lives have been seriously affected by digital gambling devices. Adding their voices will be academics who specialise in gambling research. There is a new page on this site for the documentary, and we’ll be posting regular updates.

 

 

Addiction and Society

The worldwide misery caused by addiction is immense, striking millions of people. Not only the ‘addict’ but those close to them are devestated. In addition, there are huge economic costs to society and billion pounds costs from crime.

Also, beyond the identification of the most extreme forms of addiction, millions more are affected by less intense effects (including those on a ‘slippery slope’). For example, there is a tremendous toll on those who drink too much without being recognised as ‘addicts’. One unlucky bet from a regular gambler could result in financial ruin and its implications.

For those who seek recovery there are many sources of help (and it is worth remembering that many recover without intervention). Some succeed, some succeed partially, some die. In the wider social and political, medical and support spheres, ‘addiction’ continues to be a central focus of debate and research.

It is generally recognised that more needs to be done. There are insufficient facilities that provide recovery options. Mental health services often relegate ‘addiction’ to being of less than primary concern. In society at large, while things like smoking addiction are accepted as important, the many other killers are less thought about, or thought about very differently. Often, for instance, heroin addiction is thought by many to be associated with moral and character defects. A key right-wing philosophy puts all the emphasis on ‘individual responsibility’. It is, sadly, very common to hear people say things like, ‘It’s their own fault. Nobody made them drink, take drugs, gamble etc.’

Anybody who has made the barest inspection of addiction studies knows that the end result of addiction is the product of many factors. Some of these include:

• Individual susceptibility via genetics,  peer group behaviour, mental health, poverty, cultural capital, education.
• Availability of harmful products.
• Multiple and complex needs including the first group above, housing, unemployment, prison and crime, lack of family support.
• Normalisation by industry and culture as a whole of harmful behaviours.
• Lack of support services and lack of effective strategies for many people.
• Stigmatisation. This hangs like a dark cloud over all discussion. Even recovered addicts themselves, usually unaware of how fortunate they are not to have faced any of the difficulties mentioned above, have been known to ‘blame the addict’ (while promoting their own self-satisfied moral strength).
• Education has been recognised as an important factor in ameliorating future harms. Alcohol and gambling industries present themselves as concerned about that high percentage of people who are addicts (and from whom most of their profits come), supporting charities and research. They stress that their products are to be enjoyed as ‘fun’ (‘When the fun stops, stop’ is the gambling industry’s slogan). In educational institutions, there have been initiatives in recent years but these tend to be very patchy and under-evaluated: some amount to little more than a few lessons, or a lecture.
• Advertising, especially for football gambling, has come in for criticism and many argue that it should go the way of tobacco advertising. Promotion by famous paid sports personalities has also been criticised especially for its effect on young people.
• While the psychology of addiction is extremely complex, it is fairly simple to understand why so many people turn to drugs (and, remember, alcohol is a hard drug) to alleviate misery, to numb the pain. While it’s not surprising that this connection is found strongly in people who have the least going for them, it’s very important to remember that there are many varieties of psychic suffering, and addiction curses many high up on the social pecking order.
• There is an increasing worry that something in culture and society is causing a stark rise in unhappiness and mental health disorders. Such conditions are breeding grounds for addiction. Many people are ‘self-medicating’ to escape misery, depression and anxiety.

I’ve purposely included in the above some value judgments because these are, like stigma, very common within any discussion of addiction. If you believe that the scourge of addiction and its devestating effects on millions of people can best be addressed by emphasising the responsibility of individuals to change their ways, I’d only disagree 90%. There is, and should be, a role for personal responsibilty, powerless people have to be given that power. But along with that, and along with intense attention to recovery, we need to address as well as possible the factors which encourage addiction in the first place. It’s not one or the other, that would be silly. Neither is it rocket science. If society regulates our food and medicines, the air we breathe, health and safety, then we can ask whether the regulatory frameworks in place for alcohol and gambling are adequate.

It’s not a question of banning or being anti-industry or anti-anything. Regulation is not a very exciting word but it’s crucial. There is a growing movement, for instance, including police officers and politicians, to legalise and regulate street drugs. Such a policy has been found to lessen drugs harm in countries like Portugal. But that’s a different story, and mentioned here only to throw in an other factor to what should be an ongoing debate.

 

 

 

 

Response to DCMS Gambling 2017/18 Consultation

The following is from the response of The Machine Zone Community Interest Company‘s response in January 2018 to the Department of Culture, Media and Sports final consultation prior to decisions about FOBT stakes and othe rgambling related issues such as advertising.

 

For relative brevity, we here comment analytically on aspects of connected issues. A few representative sources of evidence are cited but it is assumed that previous consultation evidence is familiar.

While there has been a great deal of attention from many individuals and sectors to B2 machines, it is usually implicitly understood that Fixed Odds Betting Terminals cannot be seen in isolation but figure in complex relationships with the rest of the gambling and betting landscape. Whether terms of reference allow or not, the FOBT debate has become an ongoing discussion about gambling as a whole, particularly about all electronic gambling machines, digital devices and online gambling, gambling promotion, gambling harm, regulation and control versus business and personal freedom, and so on.

 

One important reason that FOBT gambling relates to the wider field is that many of the features of FOBT machines and their availability are common across gambling devices. We believe that much is to be learned from the research into FOBTs for applying to other areas. In any case, like many people with an interest in the issues, we implicitly identify FOBTs with concerning aspects of the present and developing gambling and betting industries.

 

EVIDENCE

 

The term ‘evidence-based’ when attached as a modifier to policy or practice has become part of the lexicon of academics, policy people, practitioners and even client groups. Yet such glib terms can obscure the sometimes only-limited role that evidence can, does, or even should, play.

http://www.ruru.ac.uk/pdf/Rhetoric%20to%20reality%20NF.pdf

While we recognise the crucial role of evidence, we see the term as problematic.

1. Evidence gathering includes access to data, and this is by no means complete.
2. It is unrealistic to expect many responding to the consultation to engage at a level deemed by terms of reference as ‘evidential’ or ‘analytic’. This raises the question of methodologies of evidence seeking, and more importantly, the basic assumptions, values, attitudes and orientations unerlying the evidence-seeking process. One aspect of this is that a hierarchy of evidence may pertain with quantative, statistical, academic discourses dominating rather than being part of the process. There is a lack of good qualitative research. Most concern about electronic gambling machines arises from user experiences yet this is perhaps written off as ‘merely’ anecdotal. This should be a prime research focus. Nancy Dow Schull who spent 13 years on site in Las Vegas looking at gambling behaviour and machine design argued that there is a need for in depth inte rviews etc to provide evidence impossible to collect quantitatively (Nancy Dow Schull, Addiction by Design: Machine Gambling in Las Vegas). We recognise necessary caution in looking at evidence from other cultures and environments but nevertheless beieve there is much to be learned, particularly from Australian research. In particular, to date there has been at best only very scant phenomenological/anthropological research at the sitse of gambling practice. Clearly there are many difficulties to such an approach, but this simply signals the possibility that research to date is far from complete in arriving at adequate understandings and much more needs to be done in the future.

 

3. With regard to the present enquiry/consultation, there is no agreed or well formulated definition of what counts as evidence. Who will analyse and interpret a wide range of submission based on ‘evidence’; what basis will such analysis and interpretation be taken upon, with what expertise, peer review, avoidance of preconceived ideas etc?

 

Often, calls for evidence in politics are rhetorical. Look out for calls for ‘robust evidence’ or ‘rigorous evidence’, phrases used by committees, indivudaul parliamentarians, interest groups, industry. As noted above, there will be different understandings of what sort of evidence is appropriate. This is not peculiar to the FOBT consultation process. For instance, many educational charities boast solid evidence bases, yet when they are examined, it is found that this conceals more than it reveals; in ‘gambling education’ in school aged students, the complexities are often ignored and the ‘evidence’ is spurious or based on very limited ambitions.

 

4. ‘Evidence based policy’ has become a government mantra in recent decades. It has also become a subject to be researched in academic and professional contexts, as well as internally in parliament. It is certainly not ‘transparent’ although claims based around it implicitly or explicitly attach unwarranted authority. Very many policies stemming from evidence based research and consultations have proved to be ingenuous, wrong and dangerous. We believe too, with the Goldsmith Fair Game (2013) report, that in any case, government policy is not decided by evidence alone.

 

 

5. Confusion around, and rhetorical usage of ‘evidence’, leads to competing narratives. For instance, from the BMJ:

http://jech.bmj.com/content/early/2017/09/29/jech-2017-209710

6. As with tobacco, the deleterious harmful effects of FOBT gambling were discovered not by academics but by human consequences. (It was insurance actuaries who made the links in the case of tobacco). There has been a countless number of individual stories of the dreadful consequences following use of electronic gambling machines. Since research is lacking, and since a great stigma around gambling addiction prevails so that the number of people ‘going public’ is small, we may legitimately assume that the actual human consequences are unseen across populations. Bankruptcy, mental health problems, relationship breakdown, suicide may be attributed to other factors than gambling to ‘protect’ reputation.

 

7. Underlying values led to liberalisation of gambling by the Labour government. Some of these values pertain today. These values include, partly, a dependence upon growth in the sector for tax revenues. There are also libertarian values around personal freedom, minimal state intervention, and light-touch regulation. Central to the values which generate policy and research is the commitment to business freedom.

We believe that the deleterious impact of modern gambling is a public health issue. We think that gambling should be treated every bit as stringently as alcohol, tobacco and illegal drugs. The underlying values of welfare and health protection need promotion. This will lead to a rearrangement of foci in evidence seeking.

 

 

 

 

CONTEXTS

 

1. The digital revolution has taken everyone by surprise. All aspects of society are affected. In every sector, adaptation and future orientation are challenging. In the case of the gambling and betting industries, adoption of digital products seems ‘ahead of the game’. This is coupled with legal and regulatory liberalisation, and associated responses from public, government, regulators, researchers and public health.

 

We are concerned that in examining the content and discourses of relevant political and regulatory bodies in terms of the current debate, responses and forward planning seem to be reactive. Further, there seems to be a dominant narrative of future monitoring, postponement of core policy and an expectation that the gambling and betting industries will develop as they will, and the preferred response is to take ‘action’ upon singular cases of excess (such as FOBTs).

We would prefer to hear a much stronger sounding set of policies and strategies for the future, which demonstrate awareness of, and set out proposals to tackle, the growing problems associated with gambling and betting.

 

2. While weight is properly given to business freedom, personal choice and responsibility and economic factors, the public health approach to problem gambling seems unduly relegated as of lesser importance.

 

3. It is probably the dominant narrative in public thinking that ‘addicts’ are responsible for their plight, and/or ‘addicts can/should receive treatment. Although the present process of consultation examines other factors such as machine design, convenience and accessibility, clustering, our analysis suggests that such factors do not presently receive sufficient attention, and that their is undue and unhelpful focus upon the ‘pathology’ of the individual.

 

4. The acronym RET (research, education and treatment) is frequently mentioned as a monolith, hence the acronym, and we understand this block signifies various important and potent approaches to minimising ‘problem gambling’. We say more about RET below, but point out here that the random lumping together of three highly important and distinct areas both minimises their importance by becoming a passing reference and acts to reinforce the diversion of attention from the contexts of machine design, promotion, marketing, convenience and accessibility, cross-industry corporatism etc.

 

5. There is a strong public distaste for the harms done by FOBTs. This has translated into an equally strong distaste for all gambling with the Gambling Commission reporting that 23% of the public believing it would be better if gambling were banned altogether. http://www.gamblingcommission.gov.uk/PDF/survey-data/Gambling-participation-in-2016-behaviour-awareness-and-attitudes.pdf

 

‘ADDICTION’

 

Sometimes called addiction, problem gambling, pathological gambling. An objection is that such terms summon up negative stereotypes. What is certainly true is that they delineate the individual subject. The player, gambler, person becomes the sole bearer of ‘something wrong’. As the Goldsmith Report (Fair Game, 2012) claims:

By categorising a small minority of people as

‘problem gamblers’, the state and the industry are

able to continue to promote gambling as a safe

and legitimate form of leisure and entertainment

for the ‘normal’ majority. Images of problem gamblers

in our data are many. They include those

labelled as losers, weirdos or simply those who

don’t gamble well, but most are flattened out and

decontextualised accounts of problematic people.

Industry’s views of problem gamblers, in particular,

are often deterministic and derogatory. They are

seen as people who are unable to control their behaviour.

Some described treatment as a waste of

money, and people with gambling problems as

‘problem people’.

Problem gamblers are problem people. They

are drug addicts, criminals, they are unable to

control their impulses and this is why it is impossible

and pointless trying to prevent them from harming themselves.

 

Much research, acknowledging this reservation, sees ‘addiction’ as occurring on a continuum. While the results of gambling may be severe for those with a problem, those around them and society at large, the compulsion to gamble is better seen in terms of strength so that an individual may at some times resist, at other times be overwhelmed. This is important because environmental cues obviously are key to eliciting responses, attenuating inhibitory power. A visual representation of ‘problem gambling’ such as that below suggests that there are largely ignored populations who are at great risk, and individuals who can move between levels.

Centre for Addiction and Mental Health, Toronto, 2005

 

We suggest that conceptualising gambling behaviour on such a spectrum alerts us more precisely to the scale of gambling harms with different intensities, and prevents us from imagining that ‘the problem’ is with a minority population of pathological gamblers.

Yet dominant narratives, certainly from the industry, continue to emphasise that levels of harm are very low, and that those who suffer are ‘ill’ (and would suffer whatever forms of gambling and betting are available). The percentage of the population cited as ‘pathogical gamblers’ hovers around 1% in the UK although this disguises variations. In Northern Ireland, for instace, the figure is quoted as 2.3%.

The industry and others say that these figures are stable over time. This suggests that many years of research, education and treatment have had little or no effect in tackling the ‘problem of problem gambling’.

More seriously, the figures quoted refer to the national adult populations. Yet:

 

           Industry apologists argue that no more that 1 or 2 percent of the population  meets the diagnostic criteria for pathological gambling, with perhaps 3 or 4   percent qualifying  for the less severe “problem gambling.” But, as Schüll points out, those figures are for the general population. “The percentage of  pathological and problem gamblers among the gambling population is a good  deal higher, and higher still among regular(or “repeat”) gamblers—20 percent, by some estimates.”

As the APPG’s consultations showed, there is much evidence that a very high number from this revised figure are characterised as multiply disdvantaged,  and betting companies appear to cluster their premises where the most vulnerable live.

 

PUBLIC HEALTH

 

Even if one accepted the 1% figure as meaningful, one has to factor in the number of people affected such as family, economic detriment and health service uptake. As a matter of fact, when some politicians and industry spokespeople talk of the economic implications (tax revenue, profits, employment etc) of curtialing gambling opportunities, these wider costs are often ignored. These factors are well rsearched (with accompanying differences of interpretation) and already figure in the consultation process.

It may, nevertheless, be instructive to compare ‘problem gambling’ rates with other mental health disorders, using the more conservative figures.

 

Problem gambling                             1-3%

Bipolar 1                                                1%

Schizophrenia                                     1.1%

Alcohol Dependence (England)      1.4%

 

 

We suggest that major mental health disorders are not all treated equally in terms of research, priority and treatment. The connotative weight of ‘addiction’ may play a part but it seems ironic that with so much focus on the ‘pathological individual’, research, the state, the industry, and health services offer much less attention and support to what is clearly a major health issue.

The move to make problem gambling a public health is issue is backed, of course, by the Royal Society for Public Health, may health professionals and researchers. The Royal College of Psychiatrists and the British Medical Association as organisations back the move as do countless doctors.

As a public health issue, prevention is seen as crucial to ameliorating gambling harm, and this health strategy involves the full cognisance of the harmful nature of gambling products such as electronic gambling machines. In a piece in The Lancet (January 2018), several researchers argued that

The harms of habitual and disordered gambling are many, and adversely affect   individuals, families, employers, and communities. While the development of  gambling disorder by players of electronic gambling machines (EGMs) involves   complex interactions between multiple factors (eg, decision-making processes,  availability of gambling outlets), there is growing recognition of the role of  machine design in the progression of the disorder.^1,2 We allege that EGMs are                            intentionally designed with carefully constructed design elements (structural characteristics) that modify fundamental aspects of human decision-making and  behaviours, such as classical and operant conditioning, cognitive biases, and dopamine signals.

In other words, the industry exploits human psychological attributes. They conclude:

As a public health issue where we witness threats to health and wellbeing through dangerous products, we expect the same attention to gambling as has been given to tobacco, alcohol and other industries. This entails strong curtailment of specifically identified dangerous products (here electronic gambling machines); the tackling of ‘normalisation’ that follows from promotions, advertising, opportunity and convenience; facilitating independent research with no financial input from industry, this to build on the growing body of research which is highlighting product design, industry strategies, etc.

Public health should not in any way be funded by industries which damage public health. John Catford draws attention to why:

 

Receiving alcohol and gambling funding is particularly compromising for health and social agencies, sport and fitness organisations, universities and research groups. The time has come for those values-based organizations that already have agreed not to accept funding from Big Tobacco to extend this to Big Booze and Big Bet. And for those who have not done so—to do the same.

1. compromise the objectivity and independence of the research and the maintenance of integrity and standards by creating a conflict of interest for researchers;
2. foster poor quality or compromised research which may then produce biased and erroneous results favourable to the interests of these industries;
3. create a dependence on this form of research funding which may then inhibit other independent research and inquiry;
4. reduce the ability of researchers to publish the outcomes of research in reputable, high-quality journals which may have policies which preclude industry-funded research;
5. restrict groups from receiving other funding from reputable funding bodies, which will then damage and restrict growth of research performance;
6. indicate to the public, professional groups, and government—by associating with these industries—that organization endorses the activities and products of these industries;
7. create a more favourable climate for these industries so that regulators will not need to enforce or further restrict the promotion of alcohol and gambling to youth and vulnerable people;
8. compromise the organization’s reputation, mission, core commitments and values.

https://academic.oup.com/heapro/article/27/3/307/754330/Battling-Big-Booze-and-Big-Bet-why-we-should-not

 

As with every aspect of the ‘debate’, however, framing ‘problem gambling’ as a public health issue can make for neat concepts but it is not straightforward and by no means guarantees a significant leap forward (and no more do monolithic concepts such as Research, Education and Treatment).

 

RESEARCH, EDUCATION AND TRAINING

 

 

 

As noted above ‘RET’ is often bundled into a convenient concept of its own, and often mentioned only in passing.

Or prime concern is that all three areas, each of which is crucial, are too frequently conceived in terms of ‘the pathological individual’.

This reinforces the diversion of attention from the impacts of machine design, environments, convenience and availability, targeting by industry of the mos vulnerable, promotion, marketing and advertising. The reliance upon funding from the gambling and betting industries is no more acceptable than research, education and treatment accepting funding from alcohol and tobacco industries.

There has been a solid output from concerned academics and professionals about how industry funding skews agenda for research. We would wish to see levies and some taxation from the industry ringfenced to contribute to totally independent research initiatives.

Treatment for gambling disorders is woeful, this exacerbated by funding cuts which impac on local authority comissioning services. A much deeper reason for treatment neglect is that, despite its evidentially manifested severity and prevalance, it simply does not figure highly in any government priorities. Ongoing debates about the paucity of mental health services are amplified in the case of gambling disorder.

Education includes campaigns comparable with other public health projects. There is limited evidence that ‘teaching’ players greater awareness about machine features, odds risk etc reduces harmful play in laboratory conditions. Very little evidence suggests that public education has any beneficial effect.

In schools and other educational institutions there is a very chequered history of drugs and alcohol education. These days, such education is seen as part of personal, social, health and economic education (PSHE) but this itself lacks national coherence and delivery. Research has shown what works best in such education. As importantly, it shows what is ineffective or counterproductive: alarmingly such latter education which includes scare tactics, lecturing, talks from ‘recovered’ addicts continues. In the case of gambling education, as in ‘treatment’, there is a low awareness of gambling. However, with state encouragement and initiative, coupled with developments in PSHE, we believe it possible and desirable to include gambling education in state funded education. In whatever case, educational initiatives relating to, or funded by, the industries are unacceptable because the powerful implicit message is that the gambling environment is a safe source of entertainment for the many and that it is the ‘few’ who already have problems who run into danger: as noted above, such messages, combined with that of ‘social responsibility’, may act as good PR for industry, but in any case contriutes to the continuing obfuscation about reality.

 

FUTURES

 

FOBT issues are well documented, but internet and app platforms are increasing access to gambling due to the exponential increase in smart phone and tablet computers across Wales. These technological changes are leading to change in social regulation of gambling as a public behaviour, as well as facilitating targeted and unregulated advertising to potentially vulnerable individuals. Trends indicate that these may include older adults and underage children.

An Investigation into the Social Impact of Problem Gambling in Wales (2017) https://pure.southwales.ac.uk/en/publications/an-investigation-of-the-social-impact-of-problem-gambling-in-wales(8b5df31f-4e41-4308-ad28-90617ba9d3ec).html

 

As we introduced our response, the digital environment has taken us by surprise. There are many opportunities and many dangers. The use of the word ‘exponential’ in the above quotation is precise. FOBTs are just one example of exponential digital gambling growth. Betting shops are beginning to install Self Service Betting Terminals, digital facilities which provide an ‘all in one experience’. Such terminals mirror the micro-environment of the digital phone, tablet or other device. In an increasingly promoted gambling environment, young people especially are at great risk.

Clamping down on FOBTs, reduing maximum stake to £2, adjusting machine designs such as removing ‘replay’ button, lengthening time between bets etc will be of benefit to some users; more importantly it will send out a strong message of intent about the dangers of digital gambling. This should be backed up with what are currently very inadequate areas of research, education and treatment.

There have been many things to learn from the FOBT debates, not least the need to be alert proactively to the future of digital gambling and the need for far more solid bases for regulation and harm prevention across the coming gambling industry’s products.

 

 

 

Autumn Newsletter

The Autumn Newsletter for The Machine Zone and Beat the Fix.

Click here: newsletter

Gambling in the Context of All Addictions

There are several reasons to include other addictions when thinking about gambling addiction:

• While the nature of addiction varies between types (as well as between unique individuals) much of the research in substance and other behavioural addictions can throw a good light on the nature of addiction generally.
• It seems, in particular, that neuroscience points to common factors across addictions, involving specific neurotransmitters and learned neural pathways.
• Many with gambling addiction suffer one or more other addictions.
• Addictions of all types are strongly related to specific diagnoses of mental disorders which precede or follow addiction, or which accompany addiction, or all three.
• Research into gambling, medical and other professional knowledge and expertise, and public awareness of gambling addiction are relatively sparse compared with more well known addictions. What has been learned and known about the latter can inform ways of seeing gambling addiction.
• Debates about alcohol, substance and some behavioural addictions have been ongoing in most cases much longer than current gambling debates. Much disagreement exists beteen professionals, lawmakers, industry, people affected by addiction and the general public. Overviewing these controversies helps place gambling in context as many of the issues are identical. Of particular interest is the extent to which focus has been upon individual ‘pathology’ with lesser attention piad to wider factors which contribute to addiction. In some ways, these debates reflect those in the field of general mental health where an individual is seen as the centre of attention to the detriment of studying social, economic and other wider contributors to mental distress.
• The presence of stigma against addiction is best looked at with a broad view of all addictions.
• The relative underfunding and research around gambling, and a lack of support services is best understood by examining addictions generally. This will suggest that gambling addiction is particularly under-resourced.
• Evidence about what works and what does not work in addiction education – in formal education and public health campaigns – is available for substance addiction, and this can inform developments in gambling education. Although alcohol and drugs education has been around for a long time, there has been no uniform approach to implementing it. Some emerging evidence suggests what doesn’t work – for instance, one’off ‘lecturing’, ‘thou shalt not’ approaches – there is relatively litle evaluation and pointers to good practice. We’ll be discussing this more on our site.
• The questions around industry funded research and education have been highlighted with alcohol. For instance, it is claimed that industry funded initiatives may avoid discussion of subjects which cause discomfort to the funders.
• Local councils have responsibility for commissioning addiction services (including NHS and Third Sector*) and may be likely to treat addiction generically rather than by type of addiction.
• While it is true that addiction can afflict anybody, whatever their socioeconomic background and status, there are strong correlations between different sub-populations. For instance, adults who had adverse childhood experiences are more prone to mental health disorders including addiction. Poverty and other disdvantages also correlate with the likelihood of addiction. Studies across the field of addiction can examine such correlations more fruitfully than framing addiction as simply an individual pathology.
• There are no neat divisions between harmful habits, compulsive behaviour, things called addictions metaphorically (e.g. shopping addiction), psychological dependence on behaviours or substances (without addiction), repeated deep modes of distraction (such as immersion in television or other screen activities). Clinically diagnosed addiction develops over time (gambling addiction has only relatively recently been admitted to clinical definitions; some psychologists include ‘internet addiction’). Many ‘normal’ behaviours such as immersion in social media offer distractions from the world. Psychological relief and life patterns provide both escape and security, so perhaps extreme addiction can be formulated as part of ordinary everyday behaviour.

Betting or Gambling?

Betting or gambling? The two often overlap, but essentially there is a difference.

If you bet on something you are calculating odds. You’re using attention to form, your experience, a set of skills. Sometimes, of course, if ‘attractive’ odds on an event are offered you may take a gamble: though probability is against your winning, it’s not by any means impossible. People who bet once a year on the Grand National very often are simply gambling. They may pick a horse for its name, they’re not using the skills of a seasond bettor.

Buying a single National Lottery ticket is a gamble always (with odds of 45 million to one). There is no way of using skills to predict the result. While there are professional gamblers who use complex probability odds, for most of us a spin on a roulette wheel will produce a random result. There are various gamblers’ fallacies such as a near win suggests you are getting close to winning, or a number that has not come up for ages must be due soon. These fallacies ignore the fact that every spin is random. Each new spin has an equal chance of the ball landing on any number.

As said, the distinction between gambling and betting is blurred often. You can bet on the winners, losers or draws in six football matches but if you are predicting the actual scores you’re taking something of a gamble. (Though, currently, betting that Manchester City will beat Bournemouth 6-1 is a reasonable bet).

In the past, bookmakers’ premises were solely for betting. Although we still call them betting shops, punters have been introduced to a wide range of gambling as well as betting. There are ‘virtual’ horse races, for instance, screen displays of digitally designed ‘races’ (not totally dissimillar to those ‘derby’ races we played in amusement arcades).

The most controversial gambling products are Fixed Odds Betting Terminals, and the controversies are well known, explained on this site and in the posts. The most popular game on them is roulette, and they offer similar random odds. The difference between casino roulette and the achines is that the latter are designed for fast play, staking every 20 seconds if desired, and, critics suggest, with features as well as speed to entice players into a ‘zone’ where rational control is severely diminished. On a point of language, they are not betting machines and should rightly be called Fixed Odss Gambling Machines.

Outside the bookies, there is a growing normalisation of gambling and betting opportuniities. Many are concerned that the majority of these use consumers’ own digital devices such as smartphones. Saturation advertising on television and social media, it is felt, encourage ‘convenience’ gambling and betting. There is particular concern about the confluence of opportunities, promotion and normalisation upon young people, including children, whose social learning is sensitive to the environment. It is now easy to gamble on a fruit machine with children’s cartoon characters, or on a roulette wheel, 24 hours a day.

There are those who suggest that this is scaremongering, that individuals have choice and forms of betting or gambling are irrelevant. Probably the future for society comes down to policy makers betting on the risks, and gambling on kids’ wellbeing.

 

What’s all this Fuss about FOBTs?

“What’s all the fuss about fixed odds betting terminals?” some people ask. It’s not uncommon to hear people say things like, “Well no one forces them to play.”

Others campaign fiercely to call for the machines to be banned completely or at least be very heavily regulated. This website gives a background to the some of the debates and controversies. The site’s Facebook account is a useful archive of recent items from research, the media and other sources.

If you haven’t heard of fixed odds betting terminals (or FOBTs) and are unaware of the issues you won’t be alone, despite massive media coverage in recent years. Bottom line claims that the machines found in high street bookmakers are addictive, unethical and dangerous pass under the radar probably for most people. After all, there are hundred of issues that people do not know or care about: humanitarian crises, wars, refugee displacement, famines; in the UK, poverty, homelessness, inadequate mental health services, misery caused by austerity and universal credit, women’s pension right – the list goes on.

This post focuses on just a few aspects of the FOBT debate and suggests reasons why it is an important social and political issue.

Fixed odds betting terminals are not betting machines at all. They are gambling machines. The most popular ‘game’ is roulette and each spin is unconnected to other spins. The fact that the machines allow £100 stakes every 20 seconds is one of the major causes of concern. An other is that the design of the machines, and the speed of play is itself the key factor in making them addictive.

Among those to speak out against them in the last week are the generally right wing ‘think tank, Res Publica and the conservative-leaning columnist Melanie Phillips who describes them as ‘wicked’. This is significant because generally conservative attitudes include a strong emphasis on personal responsibility, business freedom and minimal state intervention.

There are those outside the betting industry who consider the storms of anger against FOBTs as coming from  no more than ‘middle class do-gooders’ who are ‘jumping on a bandwagon’. Typical of these commentaors are the ‘libertarians’ Brendan O’Neill and Chrisopher Snowdon. There is also a strong narrative from the industry and its supporters that the campaign against FOBTs is the result of commercial competitors seeking to damage their rivals. The campaign ‘Stop the FOBTs’ is led by a millionaire who has made his fortune in gambling industries, and he is often the target of attack.

The ‘debate’ often appears as little more than a slanging match. Headlines and soundbites manifest polarised standpoints and drown out any more thoughtful discussion. There is, though, a lesser noticed side to the issue which is very significant. There are people who genuinely wonder what the ‘fuss’ is about. Often gamblers or betters themselves, or in recovery, they argue that so much attention to FOBTs is pointless since gambling problems have always existed and always will, that a gambling addiction is totally independent of any particular method of gambling, that people will always find a way to become addicted even if FOBTs were completely removed. Some of them point out too that exclusive focus on FOBTs diverts attention from much broader, serious and deep-rooted structural developments in gambling and betting industries.

And they are right in most of what they say. Except that nobody involved in campaigning against FOBTs believes that successful outcomes will remove gambling problems in general. There are many campaigners who are ‘ordinary’ individuals who have been badly hurt, sometimes ruined, sometimes on the verge of suicide, who bet and gambled normally until they were introduced to the machines, whose addictions to FOBTs is very specific. They bet and gambled normally until they were introduced to the machines. Becoming familiar with research to back them up, they point to evidence that the machines have addictive qualities, are dangerous, and deserve their popular epithet as ‘the crack cocaine’ of gambling. Such ‘hard gambling’, they argue, should be in casinos, not on the high street.

Succeeding in restricting the supply of cheap, high strength alcohol will not make a significant reduction in problem drinking. But it will be a statement. Similarly, the attention to FOBTs is the focus of general concerns about developments in gambling and betting, the weekly increasing markets, the television advertising, and most of all the alarming dangers of online gambling. The latter, conducted on home digital devices such as smartphones, reflects almost precisely the most dangerous aspects of addictive betting shop machines, it is claimed. The same fast speed stakes, the same features no coupled with enticements of ‘free bets’, and as a Sunday Times front page recently highlighted, a potential targeting of children.

As we await the Government’s triennial review on gambling when it is expected that action of some sort will be taken on FOBTs, perhaps no more than reducing the maximum stake to £20 or £30 (campaigners have demanded £2), it’s important to remember that in addition to addressing the harms of FOBTs, beneath this are much bigger stakes.